Musicians Speak: "What is Jazz NOW?"

[N_Singh]

One of the best articles I've read in some time, written by a guitarist named Dom Minasi, who queries other musicians about questions of musical development-does improvisation define the music? What is the role of electronics? How does the music go forward? What is the relevance of odd time signatures?

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/arti...5#.UV25ur_5hTV

The author opines:

"I am guilty of using sound effects, but I create the effects directly from the guitar without the use of effects pedals and I am very discreet in using them. Each instrument has its own set of natural sound effects and when used with integrity it can make the music interesting and spiritual at the same time. I personally believe in notes. I want to hear music that creates soundscapes with every note and not pedaled sound effects. I believe the effects are great for rock and other types of music, and movie scores, but not jazz."

He queries pianist Hal Galper (a truly outstanding music instructor/author, whose book "Forward Motion: from Bach to Bebeop" is required reading for any musician who is concerned with rhythm and time-feel), who responds, in part:

*" I don't think electronics "move the music ahead." There is a big difference between style and innovation. Electronics fall in to the former category. Miles said, and I paraphrase, "there hasn't been any innovation in jazz since Coltrane, just the development of style." Electronics, world music and all the fashionable hybrids fall into the style category as well."

*": Stan Getz was sitting in front of Jim & Andy's bar, the jazz musicians' New York City hang for decades. Stan was crying the blues to Miles that he needed to come up with a different sound. Miles said, "All you need to do is change your background and play the same shit over it." That's when Getz came up with the Bossa Nova style. This begs the question: was Miles' electric bands a change in style or an innovation? According to the man himself, it would have to fall into the style category because all he did was change his background."

*"Improvisation does not define jazz. Improvisation is a built-in component of the human physiology. It is a problem solving technique that everyone uses on a daily basis. I mean, how many problems have you solved by merely applying duct tape to it? That we use improvisation in jazz doesn't define the music as jazz."

[fictionmusic]

Anybody who has questions like "is this how jazz is supposed to be" is missing the point right from beat 1.

Do electronics move the music ahead? Electronics in jazz? Odd time signatures in jazz? Improvisation is jazz?

These are all pointless questions and the best answer in the whole article is his closing line. I suggest you just skip to that and forego the rest.

[Dave (in MA)]

/TLDR

[mogrooves]

Anyone still defining this music in terms of "swing", "blues", "improvisation", acoustic instruments, and "groove" just ain't listening; and if they are listening, they ain't hearing.....

[Splicer]

My feeling is that rejecting innovation in technology is declaring that music itself should be frozen in time. Should composers have rejected the piano because it was new? "No thanks, I'm going to keep using the harpsichord because I don't think that this innovation is REAL music". Nonsense. This is the same way I feel about Prog. Some people equate "real" prog with the sound of a Mellotron just because some of their favorite songs from the 60s and 70s featured the instrument. The fact remains that it was new and when something else came along that was easier to use, artists went to that. Without innovation there would be no symphonies, there would only be lute music or some such thing.

[izz_brian]

You know, I've thought a lot about this question over the years (as I'm sure all jazz fans, jazz musicians, and really any artists or art appreciators must). As defeatist as this may sound, I think my current position is, "who the f**k cares?" Allow me to elaborate, though. The question is moot. The innovators have been, and will always be, people blessed with the alchemical combination of preternatural talent and mystical inspiration that cannot be willed into being. You can study all the greats, lock yourself in practice rooms for 12 hours a day, for 15 years, and never get "the vision." Meanwhile, some kid in East Podonk will buy her first guitar at age 15, play for two weeks (without lessons), and SHE will be the one who takes jazz (or prog, or whatever) into its next evolution.

So, what do the rest of us do? We can try our best to think creatively, freely; we can put everything we have into our quest to be innovative. And we can, in the end, prepare to be endlessly frustrated and disappointed that we fail in this endeavor. But you know what? It's okay. It's far better to TRY and fail than to not make the effort. Hell, a lot of really excellent (but not groundbreaking) music has been made by people trying to be the next Miles or Coltrane. These guys are legends for a reason - if they were a dime-a-dozen they would not be revered as they are.

More important than worrying about if you are or aren't moving the music forward, is trying to always speak with your own voice. Better to speak honestly and personally with your music than waste precious time arguing over whether your music is "Prog," "progressive," "jazz," or any other arbitrary label that has been created to identify and commodify art. Music is music - make what you feel, and listen to what makes you feel good.

[soundchaser93]

"All the great jazz players alive today are dead. Except for the ones that are still alive. But so many of them are dead, that the ones that are still alive are dying to be like the ones that are dead. Some would kill for it."

From this (falsified, but still hysterical) "interview": http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/arti...2#.UV88nlfM98H

[nosebone]

You know, I've thought a lot about this question over the years (as I'm sure all jazz fans, jazz musicians, and really any artists or art appreciators must). As defeatist as this may sound, I think my current position is, "who the f**k cares?" Allow me to elaborate, though. The question is moot. The innovators have been, and will always be, people blessed with the alchemical combination of preternatural talent and mystical inspiration that cannot be willed into being. You can study all the greats, lock yourself in practice rooms for 12 hours a day, for 15 years, and never get "the vision." Meanwhile, some kid in East Podonk will buy her first guitar at age 15, play for two weeks (without lessons), and SHE will be the one who takes jazz (or prog, or whatever) into its next evolution.

So, what do the rest of us do? We can try our best to think creatively, freely; we can put everything we have into our quest to be innovative. And we can, in the end, prepare to be endlessly frustrated and disappointed that we fail in this endeavor. But you know what? It's okay. It's far better to TRY and fail than to not make the effort. Hell, a lot of really excellent (but not groundbreaking) music has been made by people trying to be the next Miles or Coltrane. These guys are legends for a reason - if they were a dime-a-dozen they would not be revered as they are.

More important than worrying about if you are or aren't moving the music forward, is trying to always speak with your own voice. Better to speak honestly and personally with your music than waste precious time arguing over whether your music is "Prog," "progressive," "jazz," or any other arbitrary label that has been created to identify and commodify art. Music is music - make what you feel, and listen to what makes you feel good.

Excellent post Brian! I'm with you 100%!


Who gives a shit is right, if your busy worrying about what your playing then you aren't having fun.
And if your not having fun, then the music will probably suck.